UK Presidents Club closes amid reports of sexual harassment

A Little Pony

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote:

If I was told the job description such as it is and what type of outfit I would be wearing I would be more than aware than some dirtbag is going to chance his luck. It's called reality.

So do you think it was Ultimately their own fault for going along with it and taking the job?

Don't drink before you get into a car, you might just crash.

El_Duderino 09

A Little Pony wrote:

Don't drink before you get into a car, you might just crash.

In that analogy it's the drink drivers fault for drinking and driving. So are you saying it was ultimately the hostesses fault for going along with it? Have the courage of your conviction and say what you think.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Penn wrote: »

And if the men were going thinking they were allowed to treat the women like that, it says far more about them than it does about anyone else. They're scumbag arseholes masquerading as pillars of society and the economy, and are rightfully being disgraced for being involved in such an event.

This.

Kind of ironic that it's called a "Gentlemens" club.

kylith

A Little Pony wrote: »

I am reading more up on this story and it turns out hookers were hired at this event. The outfits of the hostesses seems to be what I thought. 

I'd be wanting more than £150 quid to do that!

In what world are "budding actresses or students" hookers?

dotsman wrote: »

They were not waiting staff. They were "hostesses" which, by it's definition is a bit blurred. Not exactly a waitress, not exactly a hooker, a hostess's job is to appear as a sexually attractive person who flirts/parties with clients.

When flirting and partying with very drunk people of the opposite gender, one should not be shocked/upset/horrified if said drunk people hit on the hostesses.

Well, maybe if one can't help but grope and fondle women when inebriated then one should not drink to that excess.

Rory28

kylith wrote: »

Well, maybe if one can't help but grope and fondle women when inebriated then one should not drink to that excess.

Couldn't agree more. But the world doesn't work like that. In a perfect world I could walk down any street at any time and not expect to be robbed. In the real world you know thats not true.

The job these women took was always going be what it was. A bunch of creepy old rich dudes looking to get into pretty girls pants. It shouldn't be the case but it would be naive to think it would be anything else.

PopePalpatine

kylith wrote: »

In what world are "budding actresses or students" hookers?

One where trilbies and fedoras are cool?

kylith

Rory28 wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. But the world doesn't work like that. In a perfect world I could walk down any street at any time and not expect to be robbed. In the real world you know thats not true.

The job these women took was always going be what it was. A bunch of creepy old rich dudes looking to get into pretty girls pants. It shouldn't be the case but it would be naive to think it would be anything else.

Creepy old rich dudes trying to get into pretty girls pants =/= getting groped, fondled, manhandled, and flashed.

And I don't buy the 'they knew what they were getting into' nonsense either. They probably knew that they would be expected flirt with the clientele, not get sexually assaulted.

Boom_Bap

kylith wrote: »

In what world are "budding actresses or students" hookers?


Well, maybe if one can't help but grope and fondle women when inebriated then one should not drink to that excess.

If rumours are to believed, it wasn't just booze. There apparently was plenty of Bolivian marching powder available. Nothing like some nose clams mixed with booze to give power trippers that bit more 'confidence' to whip their mickeys out and get handsy.

kylith

PopePalpatine wrote: »

One where trilbies and fedoras are cool?

Fedoras are cool.

Rory28

kylith wrote: »

Creepy old rich dudes trying to get into pretty girls pants =/= getting groped, fondled, manhandled, and flashed.

And I don't buy the 'they knew what they were getting into' nonsense either. They probably knew that they would be expected flirt with the clientele, not get sexually assaulted.

They accepted a job that was offered to them purely on how good looking they are. It was for a men only function. They were told to dress in skimpy clothes with matching underwear.

Which part of that is in any way acceptable? Who takes that job?
The job description alone should raise red flags all over the place.

anewme

Rory28 wrote: »

They accepted a job that was offered to them purely on how good looking they are. It was for a men only function. They were told to dress in skimpy clothes with matching underwear.

Which part of that is in any way acceptable? Who takes that job?
The job description alone should raise red flags all over the place.

Are you allow specify that in your advertising?

Surely the job itself is discriminatory and illegal.

Are you allowed advertise a job as only for goodlooking people?

meeeeh

Rory28 wrote: »

They accepted a job that was offered to them purely on how good looking they are. It was for a men only function. They were told to dress in skimpy clothes with matching underwear.

Which part of that is in any way acceptable? Who takes that job?
The job description alone should raise red flags all over the place.

Do tell us who?

Who takes a job at charity event in one of the most prestigious hotels attended by respected people from business and politics?

Who implies the girls intended to prostitute themselves just because they were wearing black underwear and black mini dresses?

I can answer the last one. The type of a person who deeply dislikes women and wants to smear them at every opportunity.

Rory28

anewme wrote: »

Are you allow specify that in your advertising?

Surely the job itself is discriminatory and illegal.

Are you allowed advertise a job as only for goodlooking people?

I'd always assumed so but go into any hollister store and tell me if you see any guy thats not a hunk or girl thats not a babe.

FTA69

meeeeh wrote: »

Do tell us who?

Who takes a job at charity event in one of the most prestigious hotels attended by respected people from business and politics?

Who implies the girls intended to prostitute themselves just because they were wearing black underwear and black mini dresses?

I can answer the last one. The type of a person who deeply dislikes women and wants to smear them at every opportunity.

A uniform they were handed when they showed up by the way.

El_Duderino 09

Rory28 wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. But the world doesn't work like that. In a perfect world I could walk down any street at any time and not expect to be robbed. In the real world you know thats not true.

The job these women took was always going be what it was. A bunch of creepy old rich dudes looking to get into pretty girls pants. It shouldn't be the case but it would be naive to think it would be anything else.

In work you expect your employer to make sure you’re safe though. They employer was an agency who also supplied floor staff to keep an eye on the hostesses. They were watching them to prod the ones who weren’t interacting enough with the guests.

So that means they saw what was happening and didn’t try to help.

If they wanted escorts, and strippers, why didn’t they hire escorts and strippers? Instead they hired young students and struggling actors to work for £15 an hour and hoped that when they were sexually assaulted, they would just take the money and stick to the non Disclosure agreement.

It’s wrong by any definition so it’s good that it’s being highlighted as unacceptable in 2018. Even if it’s overdue. This will cause things to change. Lots of old people who have difficulty with the changing world will say ‘this is PC gone mad... can’t even flirt with a girl or grope her arse or whip your dick out without being accused of doing something wrong... world’s gone mad’. But most people will just adapt.

If men are mistreated in a similar way, I think they should make a big song and dance about it and cause a similar change. Hen parties can be gross and I’d equally support stamping out harassment of men.

kylith

Rory28 wrote: »

They accepted a job that was offered to them purely on how good looking they are. It was for a men only function. They were told to dress in skimpy clothes with matching underwear.

Which part of that is in any way acceptable? Who takes that job?
The job description alone should raise red flags all over the place.

Who takes that job? Girls that need money maybe?

The real question is what kind of man thinks that just because a pretty girl wears a short dress it's licence to get his knob out and stick his hands up her skirt?

Honestly, I find your fixation that somehow it's the women who were in the wrong here totally disgusting.

El_Duderino 09

meeeeh wrote: »

Do tell us who?


Who implies the girls intended to prostitute themselves just because they were wearing black underwear and black mini dresses?

I can answer the last one. The type of a person who deeply dislikes women and wants to smear them at every opportunity.

I always think Muslims are being ridiculous when they argue that women need to be covered up to protect them from predatory men. I always assume that men can see attractive women without assuming that they’re fair game to sexually abuse.

This kind of thing makes me think the Muslims are right and some men think hat is a woman is dressed sexy, then she’s asking for it- the big slut.


He argument seems to be going thusly:
A. This behaviour is terrible.
B. Yeah but what were the women
Expecting? Dress code, picked for being attractive, red flags etc.
A. I expect people not to be sexually assaulted in work, and if they are assaulted I expect the law to deal with it.
B. The girls knew exactly what they were getting into. Boys will be boys. What do you expect?

Imagine if they were Syrian refugees instead of wealthy and powerful people!!!

anewme

Rory28 wrote: »

I'd always assumed so but go into any hollister store and tell me if you see any guy thats not a hunk or girl thats not a babe.

How is that policed though.

As people are here saying that the job specification was that you were tall, thin and goodlooking, surely that is not allowed under discrimination.

Would it be legal to tell people they had to wear black underwear.

People with disabilities could not apply for example.

The more you hear about this "event" the more questions you ask.

Complete sleaze.

DEFTLEFTHAND

kylith wrote: »

Fedoras are cool.

Why is that yob wearing his hat indoors?

How common.

Triceratops Ballet

anewme wrote: »

How is that policed though.

As people are here saying that the job specification was that you were tall, thin and goodlooking, surely that is not allowed under discrimination.

Would it be legal to tell people they had to wear black underwear.

People with disabilities could not apply for example.

The more you hear about this "event" the more questions you ask.

Complete sleaze.

It's not illegal to discriminate on the basis of attractiveness, however it is discrimination that only attractive women were allowed to do the job. That's how holister and a&f can get away with it, they employ hotties of both genders, and the normal looking people are still hired to do night pack!

A Little Pony

kylith wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

I am reading more up on this story and it turns out hookers were hired at this event. The outfits of the hostesses seems to be what I thought. 

I'd be wanting more than £150 quid to do that!

In what world are "budding actresses or students" hookers?

dotsman wrote: »

They were not waiting staff. They were "hostesses" which, by it's definition is a bit blurred. Not exactly a waitress, not exactly a hooker, a hostess's job is to appear as a sexually attractive person who flirts/parties with clients.

When flirting and partying with very drunk people of the opposite gender, one should not be shocked/upset/horrified if said drunk people hit on the hostesses.

Well, maybe if one can't help but grope and fondle women when inebriated then one should not drink to that excess.

Not them, the hookers stood out with red heels apparently.

A Little Pony

anewme wrote: »

Rory28 wrote: »

They accepted a job that was offered to them purely on how good looking they are. It was for a men only function. They were told to dress in skimpy clothes with matching underwear.

Which part of that is in any way acceptable? Who takes that job?
The job description alone should raise red flags all over the place.

Are you allow specify that in your advertising?

Surely the job itself is discriminatory and illegal.

Are you allowed advertise a job as only for goodlooking people?

Well they weren't looking for Susan Boyle types were they. I mean let's get real here. I don't know why some people can't just get into the real world.

dotsman

kylith wrote: »

Well, maybe if one can't help but grope and fondle women when inebriated then one should not drink to that excess.

True, but, at the same time: if one can't flirt with inebriated people and can't handle the idea of it escalating, maybe one should not take a job that's sole function is to flirt with inebriated people.

Exactly how many of the girls working there actually were shocked/horrified? Was it just the "feminist attention-seeker reporter"? How many were groped? How many of the men groped? Mountain out of a molehill comes to mind.

If you can't handle the heat, don't look for work in a kitchen.

A Little Pony

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Rory28 wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. But the world doesn't work like that. In a perfect world I could walk down any street at any time and not expect to be robbed. In the real world you know thats not true.

The job these women took was always going be what it was. A bunch of creepy old rich dudes looking to get into pretty girls pants. It shouldn't be the case but it would be naive to think it would be anything else.

In work you expect your employer to make sure you’re safe though. They employer was an agency who also supplied floor staff to keep an eye on the hostesses. They were watching them to prod the ones who weren’t interacting enough with the guests.

So that means they saw what was happening and didn’t try to help.

If they wanted escorts, and strippers, why didn’t they hire escorts and strippers? Instead they hired young students and struggling actors to work for £15 an hour and hoped that when they were sexually assaulted, they would just take the money and stick to the non Disclosure agreement.

It’s wrong by any definition so it’s good that it’s being highlighted as unacceptable in 2018. Even if it’s overdue. This will cause things to change. Lots of old people who have difficulty with the changing world will say ‘this is PC gone mad... can’t even flirt with a girl or grope her arse or whip your dick out without being accused of  doing something wrong... world’s gone mad’. But most people will just adapt.

If men are mistreated in a similar way, I think they should make a big song and dance about it and cause  a similar change. Hen parties can be gross and I’d equally support stamping out harassment of men.

Problem is it's a dream for most men.

El_Duderino 09

A Little Pony wrote: »

Problem is it's a dream for most men.

What’s a dream for most men?

kylith

dotsman wrote: »

True, but, at the same time: if one can't flirt with inebriated people and can't handle the idea of it escalating, maybe one should not take a job that's sole function is to flirt with inebriated people.

Exactly how many of the girls working there actually were shocked/horrified? Was it just the "feminist attention-seeker reporter"? How many were groped? How many of the men groped? Mountain out of a molehill comes to mind.

If you can't handle the heat, don't look for work in a kitchen.

I hate to break it to you, but the logical continuation of flirting is not groping someone.

El_Duderino 09

dotsman wrote: »

Exactly how many of the girls working there actually were shocked/horrified? Was it just the "feminist attention-seeker reporter"? How many were groped? How many of the men groped? Mountain out of a molehill comes to mind.

This sounds like the exact attitude that allowed child sexual abuse to continue for so long.

Does it matter exactly how many nobody has been singled out and the original FT article was careful not to name any guests who definitely attended.

This is 2018 and touching up people without their consent is out of order.

‘The sluts were asking for it if they took the job’ doesn’t cut it anymore.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Problem is it's a dream for most men.

What’s a dream for most men?

Sweet Jesus do you mean it’s a dream for most men to be treated like these women were treated?

kylith

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sweet Jesus do you mean it’s a dream for most men to be treated like these women were treated?

I think he means it's his dream to be able to feel up women and have everyone agree with him that it's ok cos they were asking for it by being there.

dotsman

kylith wrote: »

I hate to break it to you, but the logical continuation of flirting is not groping someone.

When drunk, touching someone who has been giving you sexual advances is actually a common and natural response.

Did the girls say no? Complain? Remove the hand? Walk out and leave? Or simply continue to flirt?

dotsman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This sounds like the exact attitude that allowed child sexual abuse to continue for so long.

Does it matter exactly how many nobody has been singled out and the original FT article was careful not to name any guests who definitely attended.

This is 2018 and touching up people without their consent is out of order.

‘The sluts were asking for it if they took the job’ doesn’t cut it anymore.

What the fcuk does this have in common with child sexual abuse?

We've now gone from "a mountain out of a molehill" to "a friggin planet out of a molehill".

kylith

dotsman wrote: »

When drunk, touching someone who has been giving you sexual advances is actually a common and natural response.

Did the girls say no? Complain? Remove the hand? Walk out and leave? Or simply continue to flirt?

An arm, maybe. Their genitals or breasts? Are you serious?

If they tried to avoid the men the bouncers would make them interact. If they spent 'too long' in the bathroom the bouncers would come get them.

I hope this NDA is deemed null and these women can sue the arse off the company that hired them.

I cannot believe a thread about these scumbags has turned into "the women were asking for it". Are you for real.
First it's "this probably didn't happen" but now there were eyewitnesses, it's still their fault.

kylith

bluewolf wrote: »

I cannot believe a thread about these scumbags has turned into "the women were asking for it". Are you for real

It hasn't turned into that, it was like this from the start.


And people wonder why it took so long for Weinstein to be outed...

kylith

kylith wrote: »

It hasn't turned into that, it was like this from the start.


And people wonder why it took so long for Weinstein to be outed...

Did you hear the judge who put that child molestor to jail is a big meaniehead. Because she's female

Cabaal

bluewolf wrote: »

I cannot believe a thread about these scumbags has turned into "the women were asking for it". Are you for real.
First it's "this probably didn't happen" but now there were eyewitnesses, it's still their fault.

Some people can see no wrong and would rather blame women then accept that some men can be utter scumbags when it comes to women.

I say this as a man,
I feel awful sorry for people that make excuses for this completely inappropriate behavior,

ceadaoin.

dotsman wrote: »

When drunk, touching someone who has been giving you sexual advances is actually a common and natural response.

Did the girls say no? Complain? Remove the hand? Walk out and leave? Or simply continue to flirt?

It's common to grab and grope someone who has been 'flirting' with you? To pull them forcefully onto your lap? To whip out your penis? Really? I don't think so.

The girls that tried to get away by hiding in the bathroom were frog marched back into the room by bouncers.

RDM_83 again

Penn wrote: »

Maybe because with a male dancer at a hen party there's a reasonable expectation you'll be grabbed/groped. That seems like it's part and parcel of the job.

These women were hired as waitresses/hostesses at a charity dinner. There is no reasonable expectation you'll be grabbed/groped.

Why ? like seriously why is that ok and a "reasonable expectation", if being a scantly clad hostess at a bar/meal full of coked up middle aged men doesn't have a realistic expectation of occasional harassment why does being a dancer for a hen party mean that its reasonable to expect to be harassed.

Hostesses function is to look pretty and be flirty (in this case at least, its clear from this that it wasn't experienced high end wait staff or promotions workers that were being hired who might also fall under the host/hostess thing)

Dancers function is to dance

In both these cases non consensual touching by a customer/client is not part of the job, in both these cases its not unsurprising that it happens even though its wrong.

I seriously don't get how this argument can be made that what your saying is ok in a thread about how harassment in a different job is a serious issue and not something that can be hand waved away with the statement "well what did they reasonable expect"

As an aside does it strike anybody that the rate of pay seems rather low for this style of event in central London, like not certain on this but it seems like the rate of pay that would be given for working a product booth/trade show style thing not an evening event with drunk people. Perhaps there is also large tips involved because as far as I remember this is only equivalent to what I remember a woman I worked with getting for nixers at much less sleazy and intense promotions work.

ps obviously a pretty ****ty thing, not very suprising though

kylith

bluewolf wrote: »

Did you hear the judge who put that child molestor to jail is a big meaniehead. Because she's female

Well in fairness, if you're going to leave your children with an authority figure you should expect them to be molested. What was he supposed to do? Not molest them? Don't people know that men have absolutely zero ways of stopping themselves from doing things?

That judge is just a feminiazi.

Ave Sodalis

Do you know what I find the funniest part about people defending the men, saying the women looked like strippers etc and therefore should expect it? The fact that majority of strip clubs go by the no-touching rule. Woman are literally stripping, prancing about in their underwear and giving lap dances, and you are still not allowed to touch them without their permission. So why is it most men can control themselves in a much sexier environment, when there's big scary bouncers to throw them out... but seem to lose that ability when they think there's no consequences for their actions? Why is it suddenly then that they should be excused, and it's the woman's fault for looking attractive, wearing short dresses and flirting a bit?

El_Duderino 09

dotsman wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This sounds like the exact attitude that allowed child sexual abuse to continue for so long.

Does it matter exactly how many nobody has been singled out and the original FT article was careful not to name any guests who definitely attended.

This is 2018 and touching up people without their consent is out of order.

‘The sluts were asking for it if they took the job’ doesn’t cut it anymore.

What the fcuk does this have in common with child sexual abuse?

We've now gone from "a mountain out of a molehill" to "a friggin planet out of a molehill".

lol. I said it’s the attitude in common. ‘Nothing to see here, mountain out of a molehill, the sluts were asking for it so it’s not the abusers fault, move on ‘.

RDM_83 again

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Do you know what I find the funniest part about people defending the men, saying the women looked like strippers etc and therefore should expect it? The fact that majority of strip clubs go by the no-touching rule. Woman are literally stripping, prancing about in their underwear and giving lap dances, and you are still not allowed to touch them without their permission. So why is it most men can control themselves in a much sexier environment, when there's big scary bouncers to throw them out... but seem to lose that ability when they think there's no consequences for their actions? Why is it suddenly then that they should be excused, and it's the woman's fault for looking attractive, wearing short dresses and flirting a bit?

While I completely agree why is nobody but myself calling out Penn's earlier post that completely excuses identical behaviour due to "expectations"

ceadaoin.

kylith wrote: »

Well in fairness, if you're going to leave your children with an authority figure you should expect them to be molested. What was he supposed to do? Not molest them? Don't people know that men have absolutely zero ways of stopping themselves from doing things?

That judge is just a feminiazi.

What do you mean "people"? We all know that its mothers who are to blame for everything

Cabaal

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What do you mean "people"? We all know that its mothers who are to blame for everything

You're right,
Sure for decades it was always the fault of the fallen women for disgracing a family when they got pregnant outside of marriage.

Never the man's fault of course,

Ave Sodalis

RDM_83 again wrote: »

While I completely agree why is nobody but myself calling out Penn's earlier post that completely excuses identical behaviour due to "expectations"

I think it's down to permission. You get female strippers, mostly party ones*, where it is perfectly acceptable to touch them. You get male strippers, again mostly party ones*, who find it okay to touch. If either of them say no, then it is automatically not okay.




*from what I've seen

RDM_83 again

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I think it's down to permission. You get female strippers, mostly party ones*, where it is perfectly acceptable to touch them. You get male strippers, again mostly party ones*, who find it okay to touch. If either of them say no, then it is automatically not okay.




*from what I've seen

Yes but does any of that have legal standing and if physical contact is initiated without prior consent (which the post implies), it's the same thing.

El_Duderino 09

RDM_83 again wrote:

While I completely agree why is nobody but myself calling out Penn's earlier post that completely excuses identical behaviour due to "expectations"

Yes I have been saying I would support stamping out uninvited abuse of men too. I think there can be differences in the type of strippers. I think female strippers are 'look but don't touch' but I think male strippers tend to oil themselves up and take the women's hands and run them over themselves.

But any uninvited touching etc of anyone should be treated the same.

eviltwin

Cabaal wrote: »

Some people can see no wrong and would rather blame women then accept that some men can be utter scumbags when it comes to women.

I say this as a man,
I feel awful sorry for people that make excuses for this completely inappropriate behavior,

I think it's because men who defend this kind of thing are probably the ones who do it themselves.

RDM_83 again

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes I have been saying I would support stamping out uninvited abuse of men too. I think there can be differences in the type of strippers. I think female strippers are 'look but don't touch' but I think male strippers tend to oil themselves up and take the women's hands and run them over themselves.

But any invited touching etc should be treated the same.

It really doesn't sound like its talking about strippers taking somebodies hands and placing on themselves

Penn wrote: »

Maybe because with a male dancer at a hen party there's a reasonable expectation you'll be grabbed/groped. That seems like it's part and parcel of the job.

This isn't a random whatabout the menz post, its literally a popular non controversial opinion in that post that grabbing and groping of guys (you don't use the word grab/grope to imply touching with consent) is ok if there is a reasonable expectation that its going to happen on the job. Is anybody actually shocked (not disgusted actually surprised) that harassment occurred to people hired to be dressed scantily at this event, doesn't it make it exactly the same thing?

Penn

RDM_83 again wrote: »

It really doesn't sound like its talking about strippers taking somebodies hands and placing on themselves



This isn't a random whatabout the menz post, its literally a popular non controversial opinion in that post that grabbing and groping of guys (you don't use the word grab/grope to imply touching with consent) is ok if there is a reasonable expectation that its going to happen on the job. Is anybody actually shocked (not disgusted actually surprised) that harassment occurred to people hired to be dressed scantily at this event, doesn't it make it exactly the same thing?

To clarify, I would consider "male dancer at hen party" and "female dancer at stag party" to both be strippers and what I posted was based on same, and I think there's a reasonable expectation that, given the scenario and the attendees, they would likely be grabbed or groped as part of the job, unless it was made clear before they started their performances that touching was off limits. I'm sure it would be part of the job description to check to make sure whether they're okay with either the possibility or expectation of same as part of the job. Its not a male or female thing, just that that job comes with certain connotations. And make no mistake, if the stripper (whether male or female) is grabbed when they're not supposed to be or don't signal that it's okay, that's wrong. I wasn't saying it's okay, just that there is a higher possibility that it would happen.

Hostessing at an expensive charity dinner doesn't come with those connotations. It's not a reasonable comparison no matter how much people try to claim it is.